##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.12390 OF 2024

DATE: 01.04.2026

Between :

Madanakanti Tejasri.

… Petitioner AND

The State of Telangana Through Police Station Kamareddy, rep., by State Public

Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad and three others.

… Respondents.

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “the BNSS”), invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to seek quashment of the order dated 06.10.2023 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 361 of 2023 in Spl. C.C. No. 4 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under the SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum-II Additional Sessions

Judge, Nizamabad.

2

2. Heard Mr. P. Sriharinath, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

appearing for respondent No.1/State.

3. The brief facts, as borne out from the record, are that the petitioner/de facto complainant lodged a police report on 04.01.2017 alleging acts of dowry harassment, physical and mental cruelty, and caste based abuse against her husband, parents-in-law (arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 3), respondent Nos. 2 to 5, and certain other family members. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet only against accused Nos. 1 to 3, namely the husband and parents-in-law, while exonerating the other named persons (L.Ws. 4 to 8). During the course of trial, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1. In her examination-in-chief, she made statements against the persons who were initially named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted. Relying upon such deposition, the petitioner filed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to summon the said persons as additional accused to face trial along with the existing accused. The trial Court, upon consideration of the material on record,

dismissed the said application.

4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Court below failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and erroneously rejected the application without assigning cogent and legally

3

sustainable reasons. It is further submitted that the trial Court did not correctly exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which empowers the Court to summon any person appearing to be guilty of an offence on the basis of evidence adduced during trial. 4.2. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 8 SCC 321, it is contended that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised at any stage after commencement of trial, even on the basis of examination-in-chief, without waiting for cross-examination. It is thus argued that the impugned order is contrary to settled legal principles and results in miscarriage of justice, warranting interference by this

Court.

5.1. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the trial Court has passed the impugned order after a proper and judicious evaluation of the material on record. He further pleaded that mere reference to the involvement of certain persons in the examination-in-chief of P.W.1 is insufficient to summon them as additional accused unless the evidence is strong, cogent, and indicates their clear complicity in the commission of the offence. However,

prayed for passing appropriate orders on merits.

6. I have carefully perused the material available on record.

4

7. The petitioner seeks summoning of additional accused solely on the basis of the statements made by P.W.1 (the de facto complainant) in her examination-in-chief. A perusal of the deposition of P.W.1 indicates that she alleged that accused No.1 and his relatives demanded additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- and subjected her to physical and mental harassment. She further stated that certain relatives of accused No.1